Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces

Re:Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces by lproven on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @08:30AM (#36417630)

Not really, because then, the influence reaches deep into the programming language, and that means you get one of the many single-language type OSes, like Smalltalk, or Oberon, or Lisp Machines.

They do have many advantages, but lots of people don't like being compelled to use just one thing, and I think that's a huge factor in how the Unix/WinNT model did so well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces by Spivak on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @09:01AM (#36417910)

Look into COM/dbus. There are generic language independent object models.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces by lproven on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @10:27AM (#36418883)

I am aware of them!

Do you really think that something like this is suitable to be embedded as the core internal communications mechanism of an entire operating system? 'Cause I don't.

Do you remember, for example, that the original plan for the GNOME desktop environment was that components would communicate over CORBA? They abandoned that after version 1.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces by Spivak on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @11:43AM (#36420019)

Oh I absolutely think so, in fact I really hope kdbus gets merged and eventually it gets used to expose kernel structures

Processes being real objects /kernel/proc/1363 with interfaces like org.kernel.proc.Process1 that allow you to manipulate them with generic message passing/function calls would be amazing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Namespaces Are a Poor Man's Plan 9 Namespaces by lproven on Thursday June 22, 2023 @11:03AM (#36433213)

Huh.

Okay then.

Me, I'd prefer to throw the whole lot out and start over with something clean that incorporated this into its central design.

[ Parent | on HN ]